Supporting a renewal of the AWB is silly, but otherwise I liked what I heard. I'm truly impressed that he seems to have targeted actions and reforms that get to the bulk of gun violence rather than focusing just on high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora.

oh you should hear Limbaugh today. He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see. and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

Weaver95:oh you should hear Limbaugh today. He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see. and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

Weaver95:oh you should hear Limbaugh today. He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see. and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

If anyone doesn't need armed guards, it's Limbaugh.

Seriously, Florida. You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.

This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons. He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything. The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

SphericalTime:I'm sure that the NRA thinks that any changes are unconstitutional, no matter what. And I'm sure at least 4 of the members of the Supreme Court would agree.

No, they wouldn't. Both the right and left like to say that (for different reasons), but look at DC v Heller.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

And

Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and weapons like it - are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

So there is nothing there that would prevent a new assault weapons ban. Not even in Scalia's opinion.

Weaver95:oh you should hear Limbaugh today. He's already said that President Obama's kids shouldn't have guards, and I swear to f*cking god, I thought he was going to actually CRY at one point...the left is mocking the NRA you see. and these things Obama is proposing have made Limbaugh very angry.

I think the word you want is mad. That's what they would say in the UK anyway.

bradkanus:This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons. He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything. The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

bradkanus:This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons. He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything. The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

The president can now say "I did something" when asked.

This was actually a great day for gun owners. A really great day.

The sane ones yes. The provisions aren't enough but they are a good start.

We can improve things with future legislation and tighten the laws up.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:bradkanus: This was essentially a press conference signaling the end of the president's assualt on assualt weapons. He put the onus on congress knowing full well they can't pass anything. The 23 provisions are toothless and useless.

Pocket Ninja:Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it. I do take some issue with two aspects:

1. Doctors asking if there are guns in the home. Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy. This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...2. "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system. I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

As a staunch supporter of gun rights... a believer in the 2nd Amendment... a hater of our expanding Fed. Gov. and the over-reaching of the Executive Branch... I'm okay with this.

Looks to me like most of the orders relate to health/mental health obstacles and issues that he's trying to clarify... or correct."Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad. I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes. My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB. Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call. Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone. No to magazine bans.

-The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority, and are right in line with what the public wants-Congress now shoulders all the load for passing what amount to very reasonable measures that have broad public support (AWB being the exception)-If Congress passes all but the AWB, the WH can claim 99% success, and walk out a winner.-If Congress does nothing, WH gets to blame Congress 100%, and the GOP/NRA eats it again

I agree mostly with what you have here. The ECs are useless because there's no penalty for the various federal departments involved not doing what the president asked. The president basically said "do your job."

Congress will not pass anything meaningful. They will likely not have a vote on anything at all. The president did himself a favor punting it over to them. However, the GOP isn't hurt by any of this given that what polls have been reported have major gaps where specifics belong. When they 52 percent of Americans support "gun control" - we have no idea to what degree of "gun control" they are asking about. Other polls that used the word "ban" show that a majority of Americans do not want guns banned. Besides, 2014 isn't a presidential year, so nationwide sentiment is useless. How people feel district by district is much more important. Does Senator Pryor in Arkansas survive his race? Doubtful.

And it doesn't matter if public sentiment is against the NRA - their membership is up.

the good news is that it's over and I get to keep my guns and buy the ones I have my eye on.

St_Francis_P:Sure, Obama made some reasonable suggestions; but that's just to lull us into a false sense of security until the UN comes here to take away our guns.

My local news comments are of that variety of craziness... also they are completely wrong in what the decisions were, but that's to be expected. However, there's only a small fraction of the number of comments that most gun control stories tend to generate.

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it. I do take some issue with two aspects:

1. Doctors asking if there are guns in the home. Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy. This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...2. "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system. I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done. Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.

CapeFearCadaver:St_Francis_P: Sure, Obama made some reasonable suggestions; but that's just to lull us into a false sense of security until the UN comes here to take away our guns.

My local news comments are of that variety of craziness... also they are completely wrong in what the decisions were, but that's to be expected. However, there's only a small fraction of the number of comments that most gun control stories tend to generate.

St_Francis_P:Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.

I suppose you know a better way to prove their point?

It is my understanding that poorly spelled signs and willful ignorance have lead to some success in recent years. But, you know. That doesn't stop the absolute tyranny that is a background check in the same way terrorism does.